Doughless Here's a question for steam locomotive buffs. Was a 4-8-4 Northern designed to be a strong puller on grades compared to other similarly sized locos? The postcard pic that I linked showed a 2-8-2 Mikado assaulting the 4.7% Saluda grade, and there is such a thing as a "Heavy Mike". Just wondering if the bigger pilot and trailing trucks on the Northerns distributed the weight in a way that made it the inferior choice when tasked with pulling up grades. Is the Bachmann Mike a better puller than the 4-8-4? Maybe that's a bit intentional on the part of Bachmann?
Here's a question for steam locomotive buffs.
Was a 4-8-4 Northern designed to be a strong puller on grades compared to other similarly sized locos?
The postcard pic that I linked showed a 2-8-2 Mikado assaulting the 4.7% Saluda grade, and there is such a thing as a "Heavy Mike".
Just wondering if the bigger pilot and trailing trucks on the Northerns distributed the weight in a way that made it the inferior choice when tasked with pulling up grades.
Is the Bachmann Mike a better puller than the 4-8-4? Maybe that's a bit intentional on the part of Bachmann?
The 4-8-4 design (atleast for ATSF and NYC) were 4-6-4 hudsons with an extra driver. They weren't designed to haul freight, so maximum pulling power was a tradeoff for higher top speed and acceleration.The 2-8-2 (or 2-10-2 for that matter) was designed for slow freight drags, the complete opposite of the intention of a 4-8-4, and really shouldnt be compared.
A good in between as Overmod mentioned, is the 2-8-4 lima berkshire, which was designed for fast freight. Not quite passenger duties (although one would suffice if needed), but the drivers were large enough for speed. This can also be applied to an extent to some mountains (such as the PRR and moreso NYC), which could handle duel service.
----------------------------
The biggest difference between all these locos is wheel size, but you really cant be comparing a 4-8-4 to a 2-8-2. Its not the bigger leading and trailing truck and moreso simply just the 80" drivers (ATSF 2900 class) compared to the 63" drivers on the USRA mikado.
Im sure if someone built a 2-8-2 with 80" drivers, itll pull SLIGHTLY more than a 4-8-4 due to less weight distributed on the leading and trailing trucks, but I wouldnt think it would be a noticable change, and certainly not a good tradeoff for the excessive weight placed on the drivers and poor handling.
@Sheldon the drawbar change is an interesting concept. I wouldnt think the mounting point of the drawbar would matter so long as it is mounted at the exact height that's in line with the center of the drivers (which from your photo seems like the original Bachmann mounting spot was too high)...since otherwise the load on the drawbar will "tip" the engine forward or back and unbalancing the drivers, depending on if the drawbar is too low/too high.
I assume the new design places less "left/right" rotational force on the wheels through curves? Wonder why this isnt a more common design in RTR models these days.
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the Santa Fe & Pennsylvania in HO
Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLb3FRqukolAtnD1khrb6lQ
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
The locomotive Wayne and I are refering to is not the Bachmann USRA Mike, which I do not own a copy of to test and have not seen any feedback on its pulling ability.
The locomotive of mine Wayne referred to is pictured near the beginning of this thread and is a Bachmann Berkshire, converted by me into a Heavy Mikado similar to the prototype DT&I 800 class.
Out of the Bac the Backmann Berk is just so-so in terms of pulling ability, but I added 6 oz of weight and improved it balance which provided great results.
I also changed the connection point for the tender drawbar to improve overall tracking, which greatly improved tracking and pulling thru curves.
Rather than the factory connection at the very back of the frame, the loco now has a long drawbar connected just behind the rear drivers and the trailing truck is connected to the drawbar.
These means dramaticly less side pressure on the loco as it pulls the train around a curve, meaning less flange resistance in the curve.
Sheldon
The 'engine' (cylinders, rodwork, drivers) determines the hill-climbing capacity. Adhesion sets how effectively the power is delivered to the drawbar; boiler steam-generating capacity how fast it can be done.
4-8-4s are high horsepower at speed. For somewhat lower speed a Berk is just as good (see the L&N Emmas in particular), and a heavy Mike like a GN O-8 not far behind that.
- Douglas
My BLI N&W Class A's will out pull my Rivarossi Allegheny, but only by a small margin, as per numbers I posted early in this thread - I cannot speak for the experiances of others.
So in my view, both locos are pretty similar in performance.
thomas81z that bli mth outpull my athearn rivarossi big boys but weighting them down does help , suprisingly my allegany 2-6-6-6 is really weak & i need to tweak it & wieght it to get it to pull a decent load
that bli mth outpull my athearn rivarossi big boys
but weighting them down does help , suprisingly my allegany 2-6-6-6
is really weak & i need to tweak it & wieght it to get it to pull a decent load
The load an engine can pull depends on two things: power and traction.
Adding additional weight WILL improve traction (so can traction tires) and therefore prevent slipping wheels, but will NOT increasing the pulling power if the motor is weak.
Similarly, a more powerful motor (or larger gear ratio) WILL improve power, but will NOT increase pulling power if there is not enough traction in the wheels. (aka if the wheels are slipping adding a more powerful motor wont help.
--------------------
In most cases, it is the traction that is lacking in an engine, and therefore adding additional weight will increase traction. This is true for your big boys.
HOWEVER, certain Bachmann models will seemingly weak motors and/or small gear ratios suffer from the latter. This is true for atleast the bachmann ATSF 4-8-4 (and Bachmann K4), as I used to own one and remember how weak the motor was. You can tell this is the case when underload the wheels spin slowly/not spin at all despite the high speed step. It is a sign of a weak mechanism, and additional weight will NOT help matters.
I know nothing about the rivarossi alleghany but I assume it has a powerful drive and weight will help, but in this case, I doubt adding additional weight will improve the bachmann drive.
thomas81zI run all my locos at caloosa trains & hobby shop here in cape coral FLA
I have been there a couple of times, but they do not stock the items I use the most. It sure is a big clean store, and I hope they are doing well.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Trainman440 OP has posted the same topic on multiple forum places, including repower and regear (a rather odd place), and modelrailroadforums. It seems has has given up on this thread haha. https://modelrailroadforums.com/forum/index.php?threads/improving-our-steam-engines-performance.34036/#post-515789 https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/43900?page=2#comment-493028 https://groups.io/g/RepowerAndRegear/topic/87144608#27489 (for those who have access) In those forums he says his grade is 4.5% and he shows a pic of a Bachmann ATSF 4-8-4 with an Atlas WM S2 trailing. It seems his want of pulling a (1) prototypical length train up a (2) 4.5% grade viaduct with (3) only one engine. Three conditions thats near impossible to meet. Charles
OP has posted the same topic on multiple forum places, including repower and regear (a rather odd place), and modelrailroadforums. It seems has has given up on this thread haha.
https://modelrailroadforums.com/forum/index.php?threads/improving-our-steam-engines-performance.34036/#post-515789
https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/43900?page=2#comment-493028
https://groups.io/g/RepowerAndRegear/topic/87144608#27489 (for those who have access)
In those forums he says his grade is 4.5% and he shows a pic of a Bachmann ATSF 4-8-4 with an Atlas WM S2 trailing.
It seems his want of pulling a (1) prototypical length train up a (2) 4.5% grade viaduct with (3) only one engine. Three conditions thats near impossible to meet.
I run all my locos at caloosa trains & hobby shop here in cape coral FLA when i get free time
& since im the " train repair guy" there i push my locos to the limit on the layout since i have 30 big boys its no shock
Pretty sure I added 6 oz, and kept it balanced, without really trying too hard. bring the weight of the engine from 14 oz to 20 oz. And that seemed to do the trick on my 2% grades. Pulls more up the grade now than it did on level track out of the box. I like them so much I build 5 of them, back when you could buy the DC version of that loco for about $70.
I used all three versions, C&O, NKP and PM, and two Spectrum long Vanderbilt tenders to make three sub classes. The two longer C&O tenders are getting installed behind my two BLI N&W 2-6-6-4's that will be lettered ATLANTIC CENTRAL. I'm a little fussy about tender styles and like having a "family" look to ACR power.
I had one of those early Bachmann 4-8-4s (a Santa Fe loco with two eight-wheel tender trucks) I modified mine into a freelanced version with some new details (most of the front end), and an all-weather vestibule cab, scratchbuilt.I also used the tender trucks and part of a damaged Tyco covered hopper to modify the too-long oil tender into a centipede-type coal tender.I thought that it turned out pretty-well, but the loco was never a good puller, even with as much added weight as could be crammed into it.It later developed slipped drivers on some axles.A friend bought it, even though I had mentioned that it was not a good puller or, with the slipped drivers, that it was no longer a good runner. I believe that he uses it on his layout as part of a locomotive museum park.
Here's a couple pictures of it when it was still mine (click on the photos for a larger view)...
Based on Sheldon's "Heavy Mikados", made from Bachmann's Berkshires, and one owned by a friend (on which I had made some minor modifications), that might be a good choice for handling that 5% grade, as there's scads of space in that boiler for extra weight, as long as it's added in a manner that the weight is perfectly balanced at the mid-point of the drivers' wheelbase.
Relegate that 4-8-4 to lighter duties or make it a shelf queen.
Wayne
NVSRR I am not understanding what he is trying to do. I see on other forums he has pics posted and using and 80's 4-8-4. Is he trying to remotor it? shane
I am not understanding what he is trying to do. I see on other forums he has pics posted and using and 80's 4-8-4. Is he trying to remotor it?
shane
He is trying to make it pull a reasonably long train up a 4.5% grade - not a practical goal, repower or otherwise. The real one could not pull 20 cars up a 4.5% grade.
And to be clear, his Bachmann 4-8-4 may, or may not be that old. Bachmann did upgrade the drive and make those more recently - but they are still not very heavy or great pullers.
He refuses to provide such details about the loco.
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
OP has lots of projects that are unique given his unique choices made about his layout and what equipment to run. Furthermore, although its normal to depart from the prototype to run our layouts and equipment, OP can be pretty set on what he wants to be close to the prototype and what can be far away from the prototype. These are reasons why threads tend to die with no solutions, very unique set of problems and only a narrow scope of solutions accepted.
That Chattanooga Choo Choo powered tender solution is going to be a problem because OP needs to build the tender to speed match the powered engine, gearing and axles, etc. The TYCO approach was to use the tender to push an unpowered engine that had a smoke producer.
As has been mentioned, getting the truck sideframes to look like a tender would also be a big challenge.
This link shows a pic of a 2-8-2 tackling the 4.7% Saluda Grade in western North Carolina. Don't know if it had a helper or how many cars it was pulling.
https://www.ncpedia.org/saluda-grade
Towards the bottom of this link there is a pic looking at a train from the caboose. Looks like a 19 car train pulled by 3 diesels.
https://www.wearerailfans.com/c/article/the-legend-of-saluda
If OP wanted to research how the railroad operated the grade, it might offer other perspectives.
I did experiments with a 5% grade. A Walthers FA was good for 5 freight cars, a Walthers FM switcher only 3. No steam engine I had would pull more than 3 or 4, but I did not test my EM-1, and I did not own my brass 4-8-4 or 4-8-2s yet.
He is expecting too much. My freight cars are heavy, but not very much over NMRA RP stats.
Also... as stated by others, comparisons to the Atlas S-4 are not really fair. That Atlas model is a beast. It weighs an incredible amount for such a small locomotive, and pulls like an SD-40. I don't know what it will pull maximum, but it would take 18 car trains around my Unitrak loops with no problem.
Some quick math suggests a that the real ATSF 4-8-4 would only be able to move about 900 tons up a 4.5% grade - or about 18 loaded 40' box cars.
A better model than the Bachmann would likely manage something similar.......
RR_Mel SheldonI was able to set some locomotives on my layout and check their drawbar this evening.I have a DCC Bachmann 4-8-4 SP GS4 purchased about 10 years ago, very little run time. It has 4.3 ounces of drawbar. My two Bowser GS4s (DC) have 5.7 & 5.9 ounces of drawbar.I have several older Bachmann GS4s Plus (DC) and they have 3.3 ounces of drawbar. My method of measurement. My arthritis pain is off the charts but I thought I needed to check them for this topic.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California Turned 84 in July, aging is definitely not for wimps.
SheldonI was able to set some locomotives on my layout and check their drawbar this evening.I have a DCC Bachmann 4-8-4 SP GS4 purchased about 10 years ago, very little run time. It has 4.3 ounces of drawbar. My two Bowser GS4s (DC) have 5.7 & 5.9 ounces of drawbar.I have several older Bachmann GS4s Plus (DC) and they have 3.3 ounces of drawbar.
My method of measurement.
My arthritis pain is off the charts but I thought I needed to check them for this topic.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California Turned 84 in July, aging is definitely not for wimps.
The latest version of the GS4 does seem to be a lot better than all previous versions.
The latest N&W J is better, but not perfect.
The latest/last ATSF Northern still seems weak from everything I have seen.
I have an N&W J that I bought for a kit bash - I think it will need repowering in the process.
Trainman440 To the OP: I think what youre comparing here is a bit unfair. Assuming you're using a Bachmann ATSF/NYC/SP 4-8-4 (which roughly all have a similar design), you're really not giving the 4-8-4 a fair shot. First off, these engines have 80" drivers, MUCH larger than the atlas S4 you're comparing it to. Designed for speed. Second off the gearing on these engines arent exactly designed with low speed, high torque in mind. Third off, Bachmann's engines are far from well tuned enough to operate with precision and balancing in mind. These are upgraded from engines designed all the way back in the 1980s...meant as cheap starter set locos. You're comparing this entry level engine designed with low budget in mind to some of the best diesel drives in the century. Lastly, your S4 diesel has diecast in its mechanism. Bachmann's 4-8-4s have a huge plastic shell, and lots of additional space inside for weight. More proof that these engines werent designed for the maximum possible pulling power in mind. So you're going to use this ONE sample, comparing a low engine steamer to a well made diesel? And conclusively say that all modern built steam engines need to be improved? I find it logical you took a cheap steamer originally first made in the 1980s and compared it to a "new" diesel and found it to be inferior. Also you openly admitted you compared a plastic engine to one with diecast yet was surprised your diecast engine performed better. If youre going to use a mid range atlas diesel with a diecast frame, I suggest you compare it to a mid range steamer with a diecast frame (or diecast boiler better yet). Maybe a T1 or H10 (both with some diecast) from BLI. If you were to use one of these engines (or as someone mentioned an old penn line diecast steamer), you'll realize how much better these midteir steamers perform against midteir diesels. My $0.02. Charles
To the OP:
I think what youre comparing here is a bit unfair.
Assuming you're using a Bachmann ATSF/NYC/SP 4-8-4 (which roughly all have a similar design), you're really not giving the 4-8-4 a fair shot.
First off, these engines have 80" drivers, MUCH larger than the atlas S4 you're comparing it to. Designed for speed.
Second off the gearing on these engines arent exactly designed with low speed, high torque in mind.
Third off, Bachmann's engines are far from well tuned enough to operate with precision and balancing in mind. These are upgraded from engines designed all the way back in the 1980s...meant as cheap starter set locos. You're comparing this entry level engine designed with low budget in mind to some of the best diesel drives in the century.
Lastly, your S4 diesel has diecast in its mechanism. Bachmann's 4-8-4s have a huge plastic shell, and lots of additional space inside for weight. More proof that these engines werent designed for the maximum possible pulling power in mind.
So you're going to use this ONE sample, comparing a low engine steamer to a well made diesel? And conclusively say that all modern built steam engines need to be improved?
I find it logical you took a cheap steamer originally first made in the 1980s and compared it to a "new" diesel and found it to be inferior. Also you openly admitted you compared a plastic engine to one with diecast yet was surprised your diecast engine performed better.
If youre going to use a mid range atlas diesel with a diecast frame, I suggest you compare it to a mid range steamer with a diecast frame (or diecast boiler better yet). Maybe a T1 or H10 (both with some diecast) from BLI. If you were to use one of these engines (or as someone mentioned an old penn line diecast steamer), you'll realize how much better these midteir steamers perform against midteir diesels.
My $0.02.
Well said Charles.
Even other Bachmann Spectrum line locos like the die cast boiler USRA Heavy 4-8-2 for example, are dramaticly better performers in all respects than the 4-8-4's.
As I noted much earlier in this thread, my Broadway N&W class A will pull 110 cars up a 1.8%, 36" radius helix. I'm sure it would pull 50 cars up a 3% grade.
Yes, it has those dreaded traction tires the OP complained about. I found replacing the rubber ones with the plastic ones from Calumet Trains solves all the maintenance issues....... And they still work the same.
Agreed, lets be fair here and get past the unrealistic expectations.
This is the OP's problem because of the layout he chose to build, even after some warnings from others.
This is not a universal problem that the manufacturers are going to try and solve.
Brian,
I would still be interested to know which Bachmann 4-8-4? Why is this such a secret?
And how steep are these grades? 3%? More?
I do not see a problem...
I have no dog in this hunt for better pulling from steam locos, but with issues about layouts and equipment not performaing how we want them to, I level set the problem in my head by asking what would the prototype do to solve the problem. Or what would they NOT do that created a problem that then had to be solved.
How would they build a loco to perform the work it needed to perform? And, does the model do the same thing.
As OP noted, the ROCO designed Atlas S2/4 is an excellent puller. Its also designed with low gearing. It pulls alot of cars and runs slow, like a switcher is supposed to do. Duh.
A 0-4-0 docksider is supposed to shunt a few cars around sharp curves, mainly on flat grades. Why expect a model to be different? If the grades were steep, the prototype probably doubleheaded them (which would look cool, BTW).
A 4-6-2 is a passenger locomotive built mainly for speed. It takes a while to get up to speed and probably conquers steepish grades partly by getting a good speedy run at it. Are you trying to run it like a slow freight drag?
A 2-8-4 Berkshire was built for speed on flatlands. Yes there were different variations, but again, a slow freight drag was not its forte.
8 drivers, 10 drivers were built for broad curves. 6 drivers for sharp curves. A 6 drivered loco is small, and is not supposed to pull a lot of cars up steep grades by itself.
Sure, if you want to change a locomotive so that it will do anything train related you wanted it to do, there are plenty of ways to build the one-off project.
TYCO's Chattanooga Choo Choo had the drive in the tender to have a smoke box in the engine, circa 1977.
You can have a permanent freight car behind a tender, very unprototypically, if you want to run the layout unprototypically. Nothing wrong with that, but one decision sort of begets the other, which is what creates the problem.
I have a pair of Bowser 4-8-4 mechanisms with Bachmann GS4 shells that do pretty good, much better than the Bachmann. The Bowser mechanisms come with additional weights. I think all the Bachmann 4-8-4 shells will fit Bowser mechanisms.
EDIT:
A single Bowser/Bachmann GS4 will pull 13 Athearn over weighted passenger cars up my 3½% grades. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California Turned 84 in July, aging is definitely not for wimps.
snjroy The NWSL Stanton drive could be used, I guess. These are two axle trucks though, so not really appropriate for a heavy tender. I'm not opposed to the idea of a tender drive, but I suspect that the pushing motion on the engine may cause derailments from the engine, especially longer locos. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say. That being said, I don't see what problem we are trying to fix here. I think that the manufacturers have nailed it pretty well when it comes to the drive train under the boiler, at least Bachmann has on its recent products. I'm told that the new Civil War 4-4-0 is great with the new tooling, that now puts everything under that tiny boiler. They remain fragile, but so would a tender drive system as it does not remove the fragility of the side rods and valve linkages. And they still need to be quartered. Rapido's recent steam engines use a multi-wheel gear system under the boiler. It appears to be very powerful, but I would not want to take these apart for servicing. Servicing a tender drive, on the other hand, would be a cinch. Simon
The NWSL Stanton drive could be used, I guess. These are two axle trucks though, so not really appropriate for a heavy tender.
I'm not opposed to the idea of a tender drive, but I suspect that the pushing motion on the engine may cause derailments from the engine, especially longer locos. The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.
That being said, I don't see what problem we are trying to fix here. I think that the manufacturers have nailed it pretty well when it comes to the drive train under the boiler, at least Bachmann has on its recent products. I'm told that the new Civil War 4-4-0 is great with the new tooling, that now puts everything under that tiny boiler. They remain fragile, but so would a tender drive system as it does not remove the fragility of the side rods and valve linkages. And they still need to be quartered.
Rapido's recent steam engines use a multi-wheel gear system under the boiler. It appears to be very powerful, but I would not want to take these apart for servicing. Servicing a tender drive, on the other hand, would be a cinch.
Simon
The OP has steep grades and sharp curves, and wants big steam locos to pull moderately long trains. As he notes, his diesels will but steam will not.
Interestingly, the mysterious Bachmann 4-8-4 he talks about is likely one of the worst pullers in the industry, unlike a number of other locos from Bachmann and others.
Biggest problem with mid train pushers disguised as freight cars is attempting to get them speed matched with the engine.
I think designing a non-worm gear equipped gearbox would be super beneficial in this regard, as it can just spin freely if not powered, but also it can just give a pushing force without causing issues (locking gears) if not speed matched properly with the engine and/or other powered cars.
Sort of like one of those coasting drive gearboxes, but not quite. (those simply disengage the worm from the worm gear.)
Think about the possibilties, we can finally get hump yards on flat track! :)
These arent even that hard to make themselves, Im sure darth could easily rig something up!
And, for what it is worth, I think a tender driven steam loco with a "diesel like" drive on the tender trucks could be a really good thing.
The biggest challenge will be to design those gear driven tender trucks so they still look correct. Some types would be easier than others.
Who has a million dollars to play with? I will help develope and market it.
railandsail Lets stick with the 'pusher/helper' theme of this subject thread. I'm NOT suggesting that the tender drive itself have any drive shaft connection to the boiler unit. I'm simply saying to make that/those tenders heavy and powerful enough to push/pull our steam loco around the layout. I experimented with that recently in just plain old DC mode. I used an Atlas S2 (die-cast frame, very heavy) to push my Backmann Northern around the layout. It did extremely well, and likely with a little tweaking could have done it with just as many cars WITHOUT the motor in the Northern. If we could spend the same time to get all the visually detail stuff on the boilers of our steamers WITHOUT having to engineer the more complicated drive train in there, it would certainly be cheaper,...to design, and to produce.And we could put a nice speaker system in that relatively 'empty' boiler shell to have fantastic sound coming from where it should. We could also likely improve the electrical pickup on those big drive wheels, spring them (as has been suggested), and send the improved electrical signal to our decoder in the boiler, then subsequently to the powerful tender.
Lets stick with the 'pusher/helper' theme of this subject thread. I'm NOT suggesting that the tender drive itself have any drive shaft connection to the boiler unit. I'm simply saying to make that/those tenders heavy and powerful enough to push/pull our steam loco around the layout.
I experimented with that recently in just plain old DC mode. I used an Atlas S2 (die-cast frame, very heavy) to push my Backmann Northern around the layout. It did extremely well, and likely with a little tweaking could have done it with just as many cars WITHOUT the motor in the Northern.
If we could spend the same time to get all the visually detail stuff on the boilers of our steamers WITHOUT having to engineer the more complicated drive train in there, it would certainly be cheaper,...to design, and to produce.And we could put a nice speaker system in that relatively 'empty' boiler shell to have fantastic sound coming from where it should. We could also likely improve the electrical pickup on those big drive wheels, spring them (as has been suggested), and send the improved electrical signal to our decoder in the boiler, then subsequently to the powerful tender.
I would still like to know which Bachmann Northern we are referring to, since they have made at least three completely different 4-8-4 models.
But in any case, as much as I am perceived as a Bachmann fan, none of their 4-8-4's have been great pullers out of the box. And there are lots of similar sized locos from Bachmann and others that pull dramaticly better.
So which loco are we talking about?
I only own the N&W J, and I consider it a project that needs weight, and maybe a new motor and gear ratio.
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration